January 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

Dates of WIPO meetings in first half of 2006
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 30, 2006

Jan. 30, 2006

Hello Robin, > > The WIPO Development Agenda meetings are 20-24 February in > Geneva - that's what I'm referring to. > Thanks, Robin. As Ken pointed out, I confused WIPO with WSIS. The list of WIPO meetings is available at: http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/ The meeting in the same time frame appears to be: Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda 20-02-2006 to 24-02-2006 Geneva, Switzerland Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Posting: VeriSign Settlement documents
by Kurt Pritz Jan. 30, 2006

Jan. 30, 2006

GNSO Councilors and Liaisons, Please be advised that we have posted yesterday evening, the revised VeriSign Settlement Documents, including the newly proposed .COM Registry Agreement for Public Comment. John Jeffrey and I are available to meet with each constituency to explain the terms and respond to any questions. If interested, please contact us to arrange these meetings. Sincerely, Kurt Kurt Pritz ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, #330 Marina del Rey, California USA +1.310.301.5809 (office) +1.310.400.4184 (mobile) John Jeffrey General Counsel & Secretary Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 91206 John.Jeffrey(a)icann.org +1.310.301.5834 direct Exec. Assist., Nicole Bihari nicole.bihari(a)icann.org +1.310.301.3868

3 2

RE: [council] Washington meeting: NCUC position
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 30, 2006

Jan. 30, 2006

Hello Mawaki, I thank you for effectively raising the concerns being expressed within the NCUC. > > 1/ Given this particular and sensitive issue of gTLD, which > has been on and on for a good while, we have heard the same > arguments for and against gTLDs for years, and what is most > needed is not more comment, but decisions (at least on > positions and recommendations, as far as the GNSO Council is > concerned). The idea that we, the Council and our > Constituencies, don't know what our position is, or need to > hear more, does not convince none of my constituents. > Instead, it is beleived that what we really need to do is to > put our heads together and come up with a common and final position. It does surprise me to hear that we should be limiting public input to one mechanism - online comments to the website, especially when this has not really been found to be adequate over the past several years. It is also concerning that we should be saying that we don't want to listen to people because we have already made up our minds. > 2/ And to better achieve this, we need not to expose > ourselves to further pressure and lobbying from interest > groups, which my fellow constituents beleive is going to > happen in D.C. In effect, we are concerned that opening this > meeting in Washington to public comment turn this into > lobbying meeting that will easily be dominated by Washington > insiders who are far to reflect the variety of possible and > existing positions on this sensitive issue of value to all of > us, both as ICANN bodies and globally. Remember that it is the Council that makes its recommendations to the Board. This seems to be implying that you are concerned that Council members are not sufficiently experienced to judge input based on its merits rather than its source (ie inferring that the Council would consider a comment made in Washington on a higher basis simply because of the location where the comment was made). The mere fact that this issue is of concern to members of the NCUC - would imply that the NCUC Concil members will be vigilant to ensure that all input is treated appropriately based on its merit rather than who has submitted it or where it is submitted. It seems however that in the Council teleconference we may need to separate the decision on a public comment forum, from the core objective which is to make progress on the policy work. The decisions that need to be made seem to be in order: (1) should we hold a physical meeting between now and Wellington to move things forward on policy efficiently (2) if so, where and when (3) if we hold a physical meeting, should we offer the oppportunity for oral public comments Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

REMINDER Call for Papers on Policy Development for the Introduction of New gTLDs.
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 30, 2006

Jan. 30, 2006

REMINDER: Please note the Call for Papers on the Policy Development for the Introduction of New gTLDs. http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-03jan06.htm Contributions are due by 31 January 2006 as text documents at <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> In order to inform the recently launched Policy Development Process on new gTLDs, the GNSO is inviting organizations and individuals to submit substantive papers on the issue areas identified in the Terms of Reference for New gTLDs. http://gnso.icann.org/comments-request/ http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-06dec05.htm ICANN Announcement and Terms of Reference for New gTLDs Submitters of papers should address the topics or sub-topics related to the above areas and should provide reasoned background analysis and references for statements expressed. Received papers will be considered for oral presentations to the GNSO Council during February 2006, via scheduled conference calls with the GNSO Council. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 2

RE: [council] Regarding public comment processes
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 30, 2006

Jan. 30, 2006

Hello Mawaki, > > i) if we are to make progress on the issues to be discussed > (which means we will be making decisions), I was concerned > that we may get into negotiations of some kind with live > participants, and the live inputs may lock some > options/decisions at the expenses of some other. > Which, from what you're saying, shouldn't be the case. No. The work on issues would be undertaken by the committee. The public comment process would be conducted as part of the normal public comment processes as part of the PDP. In the past few physical GNSO Council meetings we have offered the opportunity for public comment on any issues currently before the Council - this is just being consistent with that recent practice. It restores a process that used to occur in the "General Assembly" portion of ICANN meetings. > > ii) Second, and maybe most importantly, is it okay to decide > upon a public consultation meeting between two conference > calls, or is this a policy, or if you will, a "rules and > regulations" kind of requirement we need to advise and > advertise well in advance for all to be aware of? > The option to hold the physical meeting is on the agenda for the meeting on 6 Feb 2006. The proposal to attempt a face-to-face meeting to advance our work was included in the draft agenda for the Council meeting posted on 20 Jan 2006. The discussion on the mailing list is an attempt to develop a proposal that has sufficient detail (dates/location/content) to allow the Council to make a decision whether to go ahead in its meeting on 6 Feb 2006. I have been reading carefully the various comments and have tried to select a date/location that is a reasonable compromise amongst the various constraints of Council members. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

RE: [council] Date for meeting in Washington area -23/24/25 Feb 2006
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 30, 2006

Jan. 30, 2006

Hello Robin, > > I will not be able to attend this meeting as it conflicts > with meetings at WIPO in Geneva that I am already ticketed to > attend. I won't be able join in the GNSO meeting via > telephone either. Can you confirm those dates? I was under the understanding that the meetings were 16-17 Feb in Geneva (Internet Governance Forum (http://www.intgovforum.org/) The proposed dates were deliberately set to try to avoid a clash with the meetings in Geneva. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 2

Date for meeting in Washington area -23/24/25 Feb 2006
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Jan. 30, 2006

Jan. 30, 2006

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, As requested by Bruce Tonkin, the GNSO Council chair, I am providing an update on the proposed meeting in the Washington DC area. The proposed dates are: Thursday 23 February from 1:30 pm to 5:00pm Friday 24 February from 9:00 am to 5:00pm (Open Forum planned for half a day) Saturday 25 February from 8:30 am to 12:30 pm In view of these meetings, there will be no GNSO Council meeting as planned on 21 February 2006. http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#feb The room space can accommodate 30 people at an open U shape table and there will be 10 extra chairs on the sides. Some of the constituencies have informed me that their representatives will participate remotely and that they would like to have one or two additional designated representatives for on site attendance. If you will be participating remotely, the constituency should agree who will attend the meeting in person and let me know as soon as possible please. DIAL IN will be provided for remote participation of councillors. The meeting room has a podium, pc projector, wireless Internet connectivity and microphones. The cost would be for drinks and food, and will depend on the number of people attending, but I am told a sandwich/salad style lunch can be catered for at usually about 350- 400 US$ for about 35 people. There is a contribution for unlimited coffee, sodas, and juice that we are asked to make -- which is much nicer than having to worry about ordering catering for drinks. That might be about 150- 175 US$ An alternative is to break for lunch. There are numerous lunch places to buy salads, soup, sandwiches "on one's own". I have contacted about 10 hotels in down town Washington and the room rates vary from 190 to 250 US$. In order to negotiate a reasonable price, and hold sleeping rooms, I do have to know how many rooms will be needed and would be most grateful if you could give me an indication whether you will be attending or who will be attending from your constituency. There are 3 airports serving the Washington DC area: - Regan national airport is the closest being 15 to 20 minutes cab drive to Down Town Washington DC. - Baltimore (BW1) is about 1hour 15 minutes but does have subway transport between the airport and Down Town Washington DC. - Dulles (IAD) is about 50 to 60 minutes away by cab or shuttle and there is an excellent shuttle service between Dulles airport and Down Town. There is no subway nor are there trains between Dulles and Down Town Washington DC. I hope this helps. Please contact me if you have any questions and please let me know whether you will be attending in person or by remote particiaption. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

5 4

Status of meeting planning for Feb 2006 in Washington
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 30, 2006

Jan. 30, 2006

Hello All, The topic of a physical meeting on gtlds in Feb 2006 is on the agenda for our next Council meeting on 6 Feb 2006. However if we want to do this, we need to make progress in making arrangements prior to our scheduled conference call. Purpose of meeting ================== - using the initial report on new gtlds from the ICANN staff - carry out further drafting work on a policy position - if the Council decides to progress on additional policy issues identified in the issues report requested at the last meeting - carry out further work to complete constituency position statements and begin to draft proposed policies - provide an opportunity for any additional public comment on the reports published so far Given the need to work more quickly on substantive policy issues, a physical meeting may assist progress. Location of meeting =================== - the Washington region has several major gtld registries and registrars - it is easy to travel to from most locations in the Northern Hemisphere - we have local contacts that can assist with logistics Planning so far =============== - current date under consideration is around 21 Feb 2006 - locations under consideration include -- at a location in the city of Washington, DC itself -- or at a location near Dulles airport, Washington A location in Washington, DC may be appropriate for any further public comment/dialog on the policy issues and may get press coverage with respect to encouraging further contributions with respect to new gtlds. Marilyn Cade has volunteered to investigate this option further. A location near the airport - will most likely make it far cheaper in terms of accommodation costs, and probably easier to find available accommodation at short notice. This might be a better location for the planning meetings. Maybe a registry or registrar in the area may be able to host a drafting meeting. It is possible that a combination of both might work best. E.g one morning or afternoon in the downtime area, and the rest of the time near the airport. Participation ============ - given that many Council members will be planning to attend the ICANN meeting in New Zealand in March, and may not have sufficient time or budgets to also travel to Washington, I recommend we allow each constituency to appoint 3 representatives (which do not need to be Council members) to represent the position of the constituency in Washington. I expect that most constituencies will have members within a reasonable radius of Washington. Further input needed ===================== I am interested to hear from Council members regarding any issues around the proposed date (21 Feb 2006) - ie whether there are clashes with other major international meetings etc, and also any preferences regarding meeting near Dulles airport near Washington, or in the city itself. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

8 7

RE: [council] Date for meeting in Washington area -23/24/25 Feb 2006
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 30, 2006

Jan. 30, 2006

Hello Avri, > > I won't be able to attend. Probably can't even attend remotely. Thanks for letting us know. > > I do not understand how we decided to schedule it at this > time and in this location. Have we taken a final vote on this? No. We haven't even taken a vote yet. The option to hold the physical meeting is on the agenda for the meeting on 6 Feb 2006. The proposal to attempt a face-to-face meeting to advance our work was included in the draft agenda for the Council meeting posted on 20 Jan 2006. The discussion on the mailing list is an attempt to develop a proposal that has sufficient detail (dates/location/content) to allow the Council to make a decision whether to go ahead in its meeting on 6 Feb 2006. I have been reading carefully the various comments and have tried to select a date/location that is a reasonable compromise amongst the various constraints of Council members. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Nomination for Chair of the Technical Panel on New Registry Services
by Bruce Tonkin Jan. 29, 2006

Jan. 29, 2006

From: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-26jan06.htm 26 January 2006 ICANN is pleased to announce the nomination of Lyman Chapin as the Chair of the Technical Standing Panel for review of proposed new registry services. In accordance with the recently approved consensus policy adopting a process for the implementation of proposed new registry services (see http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-08nov05.htm ) applying directly to all gTLD registries, the Chair will coordinate the technical evaluation of a proposed registry service along with a Standing Panel of experts. The "Process for Consideration of Proposed Registry Services" defined in gTLD registry agreements states that "The Chair of the Standing Panel will be a person who is agreeable to both ICANN and the registry constituency of the supporting organization then responsible for generic top level domain registry policies." ICANN Staff and the gTLD Registry Constituency of the GNSO have reached an agreement that Lyman Chapin is an outstanding candidate for the Chair position. A brief biography is included below. The criteria against which this nomination was evaluated were primarily based on technical competence including the ability to understand nuances of potential security and stability measures that are important for the operation of the DNS. A description for the position is available below. ICANN and the gTLD Registry Constituency invite the community to comment constructively on this nomination, in the forum that has been established for this purpose. Accompanying comments regarding the position description content will also be appreciated.

1 0